R v Hakan YUKSEL; R v Yavuz Selim SIRTLAN [2012] NSWCCA 84

R v Hakan YUKSEL; R v Yavuz Selim SIRTLAN [2012] NSWCCA 84

The Crown did not establish sentencing error. The sentencing judge took R v Henry into account and did not misapply it; his assessment that the offences were objectively serious but toward the lower end of this type of offending was open; deterrence was considered; the finding of special circumstances for Sirtlan was unchallenged; the finding that Yuksel was genuinely remorseful was open on conflicting evidence; Yuksel's lesser role and lack of proved knowledge of the weapon made Henry less significant and supported the suspended sentence; and the differences between the offenders justified the different sentences. The sentences were not shown to be manifestly inadequate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeals against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'guideline Judgment' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'parity Principles' 'remorse' 'suspended Sentence' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'guideline Judgment' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'parity Principles' 'remorse' 'suspended Sentence' 'special Circumstances']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account, or misapplied, the guideline judgment in R v Henry.' "Whether the sentencing judge underestimated the objective seriousness of the offences and gave undue weight to the respondents' subjective circumstances." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to specific and general deterrence.' 'Whether the sentence imposed on Sirtlan was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether it was erroneous to impose a suspended sentence on Yuksel.' 'Whether the finding that Yuksel was genuinely remorseful was open on the evidence.' 'Whether the disparity between the sentences imposed on the respondents offended parity principles.' 'Whether the sentence imposed on Yuksel was manifestly inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not establish sentencing error. The sentencing judge took R v Henry into account and did not misapply it; his assessment that the offences were objectively serious but toward the lower end of this type of offending was open; deterrence was considered; the finding of special circumstances for Sirtlan was unchallenged; the finding that Yuksel was genuinely remorseful was open on conflicting evidence; Yuksel's lesser role and lack of proved knowledge of the weapon made Henry less significant and supported the suspended sentence; and the differences between the offenders justified the different sentences. The sentences were not shown to be manifestly inadequate.

Court Disposition

Appeals against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal against the sentence imposed on the Respondent Yavuz Selim Sirtlan be dismissed.' 'The Crown appeal against the sentence imposed on the Respondent Haksan Yuksel be dismissed.']